[GRLUG] 64-bit Linux

[john-thomas richards]

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:50:48PM -0400, Steven Surdock wrote:
> True if it's the first e-mail of the thread you are reading, but does
> anybody _really_ read the last email (of a thread) first?  I wonder how
> long it will be until folks with mobile devices (that limit initial
> message size) will drive more top-posting.

It is true *regardless* of where you start reading a thread.  You say
something.  I respond.  You respond again.  I respond again.  I do not
respond again - ever - before you first say something.  I am not
prescient, and neither are you.  Bottom-posting preserves natural
conversation flow.  I (and I suspect most on this list) have far more
important things to do than wait for a reply to something I or someone
else posted.  When I receive an email in a thread I wish to follow,
bottom-posting facilitates discussion far better than does top-posting.
Top-posting reflects more of an instant-message discussion wherein you
remember what was posted because it was posted quite recently.  I may
come back to a thread a day or two later.  You also seem to be
forgetting that a conversation on a public mailing list is never
between just the two people responding to each other.  *You* may
remember what was just posted but the guy who got off work late at
19:30 is just joining the conversation and is lost.

If your mobile device limits message size, it may be time for an
upgrade.

> Personally I vote for top-posting.  I get the most recent information
> first and if I don't understand the context I can scroll down until I
> do.  Much more efficient than starting with information I may already
> know and wading through volumes of something I already read to find what
> I really want to know:-)

Feel free to top-post, but know that some may not wish to take the time
to page down through an email to remember / discover what you
responding to.  Remember that not everyone remembers everything that is
posted.

Here is another reason to bottom-post: posterity.  When I search Google
or Usenet for a solution to a problem, I am far more likely to find
said solution on a well-organized list that follows natural
conversation flow.  On the few lists that have a large number of
top-posters it is often too difficult to find the information I need.
For example, when a person who is not involved reads this post, they
will be wondering what, exactly, is true.  You said something is true
but what is "true" is several paragraphs below because you did not
bottom-post.  Even if I top-posted in kind, one would be forced to
page down through the email to find out what is true.  That is a
hindrance to communication.

[the following left unsnipped as part of the above illustration;
apologies to those on limited mobile devices]

> -Steve S.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: grlug-bounces at grlug.org [mailto:grlug-bounces at grlug.org] On
> Behalf Of
> > john-thomas richards
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 4:41 PM
> > To: grlug at grlug.org
> > Subject: Re: [GRLUG] 64-bit Linux
> > 
> > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:46:46PM -0400, Professor Inuyasha wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > P.S. I'm wondering why people love send message under people's
> message?
> > 
> > This is a good question.
> > 
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > A: Top-posting.
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> > 
> > For a fuller explanation, read this:
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting
> > 
> > [snip]
> > --
> > john-thomas

-- 
john-thomas
------
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical.
Niels Bohr, physicist (1885-1962)